fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3234 ]

[ SECRET POST #3234 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3234 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

[Golden Girls]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Boku no Hero Academia]

__________________________________________________

03.

[C.S. Lewis vs. J.R.R. Tolkien]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Pokémon, Leah Remini]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Tales of Zestiria]

__________________________________________________

06.

[The Man In The High Castle]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Marjorie Liu, Sana Takeda, Monstress]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Sleepy Hollow]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #462.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 2 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't want more women in dangerous jobs like fire-fighters and fighting on the front lines. I am a feminist and I do believe in equal opportunities for women to excel, I just don't think women being put in dangerous violent positions is a good pro-woman thing.

You did asked for controversial.

Women don't need to be protected. If the danger needs to be undergone, and they want to undergo it, I don't think it's remotely feminist to prevent them.

I also don't think it's feminist to encourage them, and that's what we're doing. We say "Get into Stem to advance women." and that's good. "Get into leadership roles to advance women" and that's also good. "Get into the front lines of combat to advance women" is not good. I honestly don't see the difference between "Go out their and die" and "Get back in the kitchen".

That is an aggressively stupid thing to say, to be honest.

Is it really any better to say "Go out there and die" to men though? If someone has to go out and die, why not have it be equal opportunities for it.

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 00:31 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

intrigueing - 2015-11-12 00:52 (UTC) - Expand

Wow, you're an idiot.

I mean it's bad in the same way that it's bad to shower men with propaganda to Be A May-un!!!!! by joining the military to go kill terrorists when we really don't need any more war shit than is absolutely necessary. But not any worse than that.

The difference between the two is that one concerns forcing women into a traditional, subservient role, and the other concerns allowing women equal opportunity to do something that many of them want to do, as well as overcoming the notion that women are inherently too weak, fragile, and emotional to perform certain tasks.

You may not agree with women being in certain jobs, but as long as they exist, we should have the right to choose to do them.

Women die in wars anyway. And the way wars are fought now isn't as simple as sending people to the front lines. It's like dismissing them from the risks they're already taking.

The think is men being there isn't a great thing either. Ideally people shouldn't have to be in danger while doing their job, but some jobs simply hold more risk.

The good news is that in most cases the people who do this are aware of it and go into it knowing the risks.

Edited 2015-11-12 00:02 (UTC)

Exactly.

If a woman or a man willingly chooses to go into a dangerous line of work, and wants to do that sort of job for a living, then so be it. I might think them a bit nuts, depending on the danger level of the job, but I also admire their bravery and respect their willingness to take that risk. Especially if they're doing it to save people's lives.

Well, that is controversial. Also, completely unfeminist, since you aren't willing to treat women the same as men, to the point of possible infantilization.

Oh for fuck's sake. It's not infantlization to think that safety standards shouldn't be changed for women.

If anything the changing of standards is infantlization. If you can't do the job, you can't do the job.

You never said anything about safety standards. Jobs should not be gender segregated unless you're stripping. Have one physical test if you need it, but no one should be barred from doing a job because of their gender.

NA
Related: I don't think it's wrong for women who want to and are able to serve in front-line combat roles, but I don't think there should be a different set of physical requirements. Now, if the military wants to re-evaluate whether the current standards need to be as tough as they are, OK, but change them for everybody -- and don't change them just to score feminist brownie points, either.

Also: I think it's OK to consider menstruation and how that can affect a combat tour.

OH NO!!! NOT ICKY WOMENS WITH WITH THEIR ICKY PERIODS!!! VAGINAS ARE GROSS!

...how the hell would menstruation possibly affect combat? A well-trained soldier isn't going to start crying if they get a few blood stains on their underwear.

Do you not know how messy periods can be? Protip: Heavy-flow clotty periods can be super fucking messy and certainly a hindrance in, say, Afghanistan and Iraq or other desert climates.

So to avoid that, you have to factor in the logistics of packing pads or tampons, changing them regularly (or dumping your cup, if you go that route, or dealing with needing to take a daily BC bill to stop your period during your tour. And then you have to carry that, too. And that's all fine for non-combat roles.

It can be a problem when you're caught out in a war zone.

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 01:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

insanenoodlyguy - 2015-11-12 01:48 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 01:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 01:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 02:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 02:52 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 03:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 02:19 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 02:36 (UTC) - Expand

Military training, combat, and deployment are very physical, high stress situations. Many women stop getting their periods during such time, and when they do get their periods they are often shorter and lighter than those of a woman who is not physically active.

We absolutely should not lower standards or have different ones. This does mean the jobs will disproportionately continue to favor men, certainly. But changing the standards (for everybody or ladies, either way) for the purpose of having women in those jobs means that when actual shit goes down, there's a group that's going to be holding others back. And that will breed resentment at best. It certainly won't convince anybody those people belong there.

I mean, I agree with you 98 percent, but I'm not down with the blanket "we shouldn't lower standards." They shouldn't be lowered arbitrarily or without study, but I don't think it's out of the question to examine whether they need to be as high as they are in all regards.

For instance, in the Marine fitness tests, you get a perfect score if you can perform X tasks in, say, 3 minutes. If experience ends up showing that, these days, people who perform X tasks but take 5 seconds longer perform just as well in real-world situations as people who did it in 3 minutes, then it might be time to reconsider if 3:05 is the limit by which a perfect score is garnered.

Obviously this isn't a change that could happen overnight. It would take a lot of study and recommendations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring that option.

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 03:14 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 06:48 (UTC) - Expand

Also: I think it's OK to consider menstruation and how that can affect a combat tour.

Well, of course.

If anything, I think the sight of 2000 women launching fully loaded tampon grenades would be just the thing to repel the enemy.

I remember there having been a study recently about how allowing women into the military based on lower standards can put their comrades at risk in a combat situation because they found that mixed sex groups generally performed worse during some tests than all male. The people who conducted these rests and revealed this study were promptly thrown under the bus by their commanding officer for being sexist iirc.

I agree that if women want to take a high risk job, they need to be able to perform at the same level as the men they're working with. Because I don't think peoples' lives (both male and female comrades/coworkers) should be put at risk just for not wanting to hurt another woman's feelings and wish of self-fulfilment.

Re: Controversial Opinions

(Anonymous) - 2015-11-12 15:11 (UTC) - Expand

Piss off.

If you're policing what women can and can't do, while not applying that to men you're just being sexist

My sister is a firefighter. She is a damned good firefighter and is about to be promoted to Lieutenant (next week!). I understand not wanting to have different standards for men and women for a job. If a job is dangerous, a person needs to be able to do it. But if a woman can do the job and wants to do the job, why shouldn't she be able to do the job?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only